Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

I did ask but I shouldn't have had to. Had you written it correctly in the first place I might not even have replied at all and we wouldn't have needed a 100 post discussion about it.

So if you did obtain your answer, what was the point of these repetitive questions on the same subject?

[David Orsam]

Yes, normally there would be a cursory examination followed by a Coroners post-mortem.

The Coroners post-mortem occurred on Saturday morning, as recorded in the press.

Yet we are also dealing with two examinations mentioned by the press on Friday.
From what I understand you say there might be only one examination on Friday, yet you call it a post-mortem.

Can we just clarify that I'm not calling it that, I'm just trying to do my best to reflect what the doctors called it.

I thought I made clear some time ago that I originally took the expression "post-mortem examination" from Dr Bond's 10th November report (for the purposes of discussion let's refer to his 10th and 16th November reports). But it's possible that Dr Bond did not refer to the Friday examination as a post-mortem examination. If he didn't do that then I'm wondering if the only post-mortem was on the Saturday.

I don't have any definitive views. It's a suggestion. But it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to me, especially if we forget everything in the newspapers.

Phillips tells you that he conducted a subsequent examination on entering the room at 1.30 pm.
Yet Bond tells us a post-mortem began on Friday at 2 pm.

Not quite Jon, Phillips tells me that he concluded a subsequent examination at some unspecified time after entering the room at 1.30pm. So that could be 2pm.

And where does Bond tell us that a post-mortem began on Friday at 2pm?

Didn't you read my discussion of Bond's 10th November report in an earlier post?

Where is your in-situ (cursory?) examination, if it isn't the one mentioned by Phillips?

I'm suggesting the in situ examination - please forget the word "cursory" which no-one ever used Jon - was the one which occurred between 2pm and 4pm after the photographs had been taken (which activity, I suggest, commenced shortly after 1.30pm).

[David Orsam]

Seeing as how you are quite adept with the search routine, perhaps you can locate any one time I have claimed these events as a 'fact'?

You can take this challenge as in the same vein as you claiming I have not produced sources.
Produce your source!!!

Crikey not that again. I've already quoted the two examples twice in this very thread!

[David Orsam]

So if you did obtain your answer, what was the point of these repetitive questions on the same subject?

Er... because you strongly challenged everything I said....oh and because it took about 50 posts for you to answer the other question I asked (namely what did you mean by "preliminary examination").

[Wickerman]

But you are wrong! He simply does not say that. He does not say "After entering the room I made an examination". On the contrary, he speaks about entering the room then refers to his "subsequent examination".

It's one thing to form your own interpretation but another to misrepresent the evidence.

This is you playing semantics.
At what time does he say he conducted this subsequent examination?

How long do you think it would have taken the photographer to take six photographs of the interior from different angles incidentally?

"Think"? - 15 minutes?
Who said there were "six"?
Some were taken outside, so we are told.

[David Orsam]

This is you playing semantics.
At what time does he say he conducted this subsequent examination?

He doesn't say but it means occurring later or after something.

As I've already asked you, why did he feel the need to use the word at all? Why not just refer to his "examination". Why was it a "subsequent" examination?

"Think"? - 15 minutes?
Who said there were "six"?
Some were taken outside, so we are told.

We don't know how many photographs were taken so I was asking you on the basis of six. I can't help thinking it would have taken longer than 15 minutes in 1888. Closer to half an hour I would have thought. But I'm no expert.

[Wickerman]

He doesn't say but it means occurring later or after something.

There is nothing ambiguous about the use of "subsequent", when he has just said he entered the room at 1:30 pm.

As I've already asked you, why did he feel the need to use the word at all? Why not just refer to his "examination". Why was it a "subsequent" examination?

You are creating a mystery where none exists.
- He told the court he entered the room at 1:30.
- On entering the room he described what he saw:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition, the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry she had only her under linen garment on her"

No mention of blood or the location of certain wounds.
So now he looks over the body, maybe he moved the bed to get a better look. How else would he know about the large quantity of blood between the bed and the wall unless he moved the bed?

"....and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

It's all quite clear.
No mention of scattered organs. No mention of anything that might constitute a post-mortem. Simply a visual examination of the body.

We don't know how many photographs were taken so I was asking you on the basis of six. I can't help thinking it would have taken longer than 15 minutes in 1888. Closer to half an hour I would have thought. But I'm no expert.

No point in asking the question then, I'm no photographic historian.

[Joshua Rogan]

I've been wondering about this point... ever since the post about the environment not being conducive for photography.

I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.

[David Orsam]

There is nothing ambiguous about the use of "subsequent", when he has just said he entered the room at 1:30 pm.

If you say that then perhaps you don't know what "subsequent" means. It means some time AFTER 1.30pm. So it could, in theory, be 1.31pm (although that would be odd) but it could be 2pm or 4pm or 8pm or any other time after 1.30. Of course it's ambiguous!

[Wickerman]

Crikey not that again. I've already quoted the two examples twice in this very thread!

So you have not found me using the word "fact" then, obviously.
I knew I didn't, I intentionally avoid it for the numerous reason already explained to you.
It's just you making assumptions.

Phillips DID say he made an examination after entering the room.
Like it or not, he said it.
Is it a fact?, I have no idea.

[David Orsam]

You are creating a mystery where none exists.
- He told the court he entered the room at 1:30.
- On entering the room he described what he saw:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition, the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry she had only her under linen garment on her"

No mention of blood or the location of certain wounds.
So now he looks over the body, maybe he moved the bed to get a better look. How else would he know about the large quantity of blood between the bed and the wall unless he moved the bed?

"....and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the paliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner."

It's all quite clear.
No mention of scattered organs. No mention of anything that might constitute a post-mortem. Simply a visual examination of the body.

But I've already dealt with this in a previous post. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

In summary, Phillips was not telling a chronological story when he gave his evidence. He was doing two separate things: (1) Explaining what he saw when he entered the room and (2) Telling the jury the cause of death (on the basis of his examination).

You are seriously confused if you think he was setting out a chronological sequence of events, moving from the furniture to the medical examination before he was stopped by the coroner from telling the end of the story.

[Wickerman]

I think the post was saying roughly that the photographer left around 4-4:30pm when the light (and, indeed, the body) started to go. This was in a room with north facing windows in a north facing yard in November, so the light was never going to be great. But if he turned up and started snapping away at 1:30pm, that's about three hours of daylight, so roughly one photo every half hour.

I think the wording was that he removed his equipment at 4:30. Which implies that the equipment was in the room all afternoon, him being invited in on his arrival after 1:30.

[Wickerman]

If you say that then perhaps you don't know what "subsequent" means. It means some time AFTER 1.30pm. So it could, in theory, be 1.31pm (although that would be odd) but it could be 2pm or 4pm or 8pm or any other time after 1.30. Of course it's ambiguous!

Of course I know what subsequent means. Though why you have to stretch the meaning to justify your theory is I suppose, to be expected.
There is no reason to suppose his "subsequent" would mean at 2:00, or he could just as easily have said so.
The more likely interpretation is it meant shortly after his entrance, within a minute or two, which is why no time was given.

[Wickerman]

But I've already dealt with this in a previous post. Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

You failed to detail it out clearly.

In summary, Phillips was not telling a chronological story when he gave his evidence. He was doing two separate things: (1) Explaining what he saw when he entered the room and (2) Telling the jury the cause of death (on the basis of his examination).

Like I said before, he was able to determine the cause of death in his cursory examination, after entering the room. His reply to the Coroner would have been different if the eventual post-mortem had turned up another cause.
It's just that simple.

[David Orsam]

There is no reason to suppose his "subsequent" would mean at 2:00, or he could just as easily have said so.
The more likely interpretation is it meant shortly after his entrance, within a minute or two, which is why no time was given.

Bearing in mind the meaning of the word "subsequent" I would have thought that yours is the least likely explanation. If it was only "a minute or two", there was no need to even use the word. That's why I personally concluded that the examination he was referring to was probably at 2pm.

That, for me, is consistent with the photographer getting his photos out of the way prior to the 2pm examination. But we've been all over this and round the houses on it. I have no idea why we are still discussing it.

(I think it's because you can't accept that I could possibly be right.)